Creationism In Science Lessons

@buffalobill90 Said

The word "dogma" doesn't appear in scripture, but the scriptures contain established dogma. Likewise, the word "Bible" doesn't appear in scripture either; but that is the name which has be applied to the disparate group of books which the early Church slapped together for their political convenience.

@buffalobill90 Said

The word "dogma" doesn't appear in scripture, but the scriptures contain established dogma. Likewise, the word "Bible" doesn't appear in scripture either; but that is the name which has be applied to the disparate group of books which the early Church slapped together for their political convenience.

@buffalobill90 Said

Skin colour and heritage are meaningless and archaic reasons to arbitrarily group people into races. Everyone has a unique appearance, everyone has a different recent heritage - and everyone has the same ancient heritage. As for culture, that is artificial and has nothing to do with race; though many people develop cultures according to the perception that they belong to a distinct race, which is a myth.

Celebrate all the good that the belief in race gives us? What good has it ever done? All it does is divide people.

@KAMPA Said

Equine homosexuality is not something I object to!
Katie does not make idle talk,you should restrain your tongue when you deal with her. She could have you banned!

@aquine Said

Please refer to this 'established dogma'.

And remember that nothing was established before the Word of God.

Regarding your second false assumption, check the front cover.


God bless you.

@aquine Said

A True humanist. How sweet.

I actually agree with much of what you've said, yet the Truth of the matter is, within the set known as the human race there are many subsets.


God bless you.

@buffalobill90 Said

"Subsets". Such as?

@aquine Said

Caucasian. Asian. Eurasian. Negro.


God bless you.

@Marcussextus Said

I agree, it's just plain silly, PC madness, to deny the existence of race, in the general sense that is most commonly understood.
We accept different "breeds" in horses, dogs, cats, etc, and happily accept the relationship between lions and tigers, and other similar related groups of life.
So what makes US any different?
Bears are pure white, and HUGE, in the Arctic, brown, black, and brindled in the USA, different colours and patterns elsewhere. Human's are much the same, we variegated across the planet.
So what?
Same animal, different hide, different mating rituals, big deal.

@buffalobill90 Said

Skin colour and heritage are meaningless and archaic reasons to arbitrarily group people into races. Everyone has a unique appearance, everyone has a different recent heritage - and everyone has the same ancient heritage. As for culture, that is artificial and has nothing to do with race; though many people develop cultures according to the perception that they belong to a distinct race, which is a myth.

Celebrate all the good that the belief in race gives us? What good has it ever done? All it does is divide people.

@Marcussextus Said

Nice ideal, and while technically correct, you ignore human feelings about culture and identity at your peril, history has proven that time after time.
Care to respond to my post above?

@buffalobill90 Said

Humans have no subspecies - a polar bear will not produce fertile offspring with a grizzly bear, but all humans can breed together. We have superficial differences in appearance, probably because of cultural segregation and artificial selection of traits, among other things. Difference in skin pigmentation is an adaptation to light intensity, but it doesn't actually vary that much. There are no differences worth making a fuss about.

I think culture and group identity prevent people from thinking for themselves; it buys small-scale unity at the expense of wider unity. It's been useful, but hopefully it won't last forever.

@Marcussextus Said

Sorry to keep niggling, but that appears to be a series of unsupportable assertions and assumptions.
I wouldn't disagree with your thoughts on the effects of culture et. al. nor your hope for the future.
Perhaps you missed my final line?
"Same animal, different hide, different mating rituals, big deal"

@buffalobill90 Said

The ursus genus includes most species of "bear" (it doesn't include pandas) but polar bears, brown bears and black bears are defined as different species since they can't produce fertile offspring together. Different species of bears have subspecies, such as grizzly bears, which can produce fertile offspring together. Apparently, all modern humans belong to the subspecies homo sapiens sapiens. So what are popularly defined as "races" are not subspecies of humans - they wouldn't receive this taxonomical categorisation because they are so genetically similar to each other. An important point is that human populations have 'clines' rather than sharp variations: the genetic variation between groups is gradual since there has been sufficiently frequent and widespread interbreeding among populations; this is especially the case in the globalised world.